Comparison of Heart Team vs Interventional Cardiologist Recommendations for the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease.

Importance: Although the heart team approach is recommended in revascularization guidelines, the frequency with which heart team decisions differ from those of the original treating interventional cardiologist is unknown. Objective: To examine the difference in decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist for the treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, 245 consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were recruited from 1 high-volume tertiary care referral center (185 patients were enrolled through a screening process, and 60 patients were retrospectively enrolled from the center's database). A total of 237 patients were included in the final virtual heart team analysis. Treatment decisions (which comprised coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy) were made by the original treating interventional cardiologists between March 15, 2012, and October 20, 2014. These decisions were then compared with pooled-majority treatment decisions made by 8 blinded heart teams using structured online case presentations between October 1, 2017, and October 15, 2018. The randomized members of the heart teams comprised experts from 3 domains, with each team containing 1 noninvasive cardiologist, 1 interventional cardiologist, and 1 cardiovascular surgeon. Cases in which all 3 of the heart team members disagreed and cases in which procedural discordance occurred (eg, 2 members chose coronary artery bypass grafting and 1 member chose percutaneous coronary intervention) were discussed in a face-to-face heart team review in October 2018 to obtain pooled-majority decisions. Data were analyzed from May 6, 2019, to April 22, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The Cohen κ coefficient between the treatment recommendation from the heart team and the treatment recommendation from the original treating interventional cardiologist. Results: Among 234 of 237 patients (98.7%) in the analysis for whom complete data were available, the mean (SD) age was 67.8 (10.9) years; 176 patients (75.2%) were male, and 191 patients (81.4%) had stenosis in 3 epicardial coronary vessels. A total of 71 differences (30.3%; 95% CI, 24.5%-36.7%) in treatment decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist occurred, with a Cohen κ of 0.478 (95% CI, 0.336-0.540; P = .006). The heart team decision was more frequently unanimous when it was concordant with the decision of the original treating interventional cardiologist (109 of 163 cases [66.9%]) compared with when it was discordant (28 of 71 cases [39.4%]; P < .001). When the heart team agreed with the original treatment decision, there was more agreement between the heart team interventional cardiologist and the original treating interventional cardiologist (138 of 163 cases [84.7%]) compared with when the heart team disagreed with the original treatment decision (14 of 71 cases [19.7%]); P < .001). Those with an original treatment of coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy, 32 of 148 patients [22.3%], 32 of 71 patients [45.1%], and 6 of 15 patients [40.0%], respectively, received a different treatment recommendation from the heart team than the original treating interventional cardiologist; the difference across the 3 groups was statistically significant (P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: The heart team's recommended treatment for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease differed from that of the original treating interventional cardiologist in up to 30% of cases. This subset of cases was associated with a lower frequency of unanimous decisions within the heart team and less concordance between the interventional cardiologists; discordance was more frequent when percutaneous coronary intervention or medication therapy were considered. Further research is needed to evaluate whether heart team decisions are associated with improvements in outcomes and, if so, how to identify patients for whom the heart team approach would be beneficial.

Very severe thrombocytopenia and fragmentation hemolysis mimicking thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura associated with a giant intracardiac vegetation infected with Staphylococcus epidermidis: role of monocyte procoagulant activity induced by bacterial supernatant.

The pathogenesis of very severe thrombocytopenia in bacterial endocarditis is uncertain. We report a 50-year-old male with platelet counts < 10 x 10(9)/l and fragmentation hemolysis complicating Staphylococcus epidermidis pacemaker endocarditis with a giant vegetation. Antibiotics, corticosteroids, high-dose intravenous gammaglobulin, and plasmapheresis (for initially-suspected thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura) failed to produce significant platelet count increase. However, therapeutic-dose heparin anticoagulation was associated with a platelet count increase from <10 to approximately 40 x 10(9)/l, with parallel reduction in thrombin-antithrombin complexes (from 8.9 to 3.5 microg/l), facilitating surgical intervention. The thrombocytopenia promptly resolved following surgical removal of the vegetation. Culture supernatant from S. epidermidis isolated from the patient's blood induced monocytes to express procoagulant activity (assessed by factor Xa generation) equivalent to lipopolysaccharide (1 microg/ml), with half-maximal activation seen with culture supernatant diluted to 1:12,800. These data are consistent with previous animal models of endocarditis demonstrating staphylococci-induced procoagulant changes in monocytes. This case demonstrates that heparin anticoagulation can be therapeutic in infective endocarditis-associated severe thrombocytopenia in a non-bleeding patient, and that such therapy may ameliorate the platelet count enough to permit surgical intervention.

Perivascular adipose tissue modulates vascular function in the human internal thoracic artery.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have shown that perivascular adipose tissue from the rat aorta secretes a substance that can dilate the aorta. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether this vasodilator is also present in human internal thoracic arteries. METHODS: Vascular function of human internal thoracic arteries with and without perivascular adipose tissue was assessed with wire myography, and morphology was examined with light microscopy. RESULTS: The presence of perivascular adipose tissue attenuated the maximal contraction to U 46619 and the contraction to phenylephrine (1 micromol/L) by 37% and 24%, respectively. Transfer of the solution incubated with a perivascular adipose tissue-intact vessel (donor) to a vessel without perivascular adipose tissue (recipient) induced a significant relaxation (36%) in the recipient artery precontracted with phenylephrine. Transfer of incubation solution with perivascular adipose tissue alone also induced a relaxation response in the recipient vessel (37%). The relaxation of the recipient artery induced by the transfer of incubation solution from the donor (artery with intact perivascular adipose tissue or perivascular adipose tissue alone) was absent in vessels precontracted by KCl (60 mmol/L) and was prevented by calcium-dependent potassium channel blockers (tetraethylammonium chloride, 1 mmol/L; iberiotoxin, 100 nmol/L), but not by the voltage-dependent potassium channel blocker 4-aminopyridine (1 mmol/L) and the adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channel blocker glibenclamide (10 micromol/L). CONCLUSIONS: Perivascular adipose tissue in human internal thoracic arteries releases a transferable relaxation factor that acts through the activation of calcium-dependent potassium channels. Because perivascular adipose tissue is often removed in coronary artery bypass grafting, retaining perivascular adipose tissue might be helpful in reducing the occurrence of vasospasm of the graft vessels.

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study (LAAOS): results of a randomized controlled pilot study of left atrial appendage occlusion during coronary bypass surgery in patients at risk for stroke.

AIM: This pilot study assessed the safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion, performed at the time of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS AND RESULTS: At the time of CABG, 77 patients with risk factors for stroke were randomized to LAA occlusion or control. The LAA was occluded using sutures or a stapling device. Completeness of occlusion was assessed with transesophageal echocardiography. There were no significant differences in cardiopulmonary bypass duration, perioperative heart failure, atrial fibrillation, or bleeding between the 2 groups. During surgery, there were 9 appendage tears, all of which were repaired easily with sutures. Among patients having a postoperative transesophageal echocardiography, complete occlusion of the LAA was achieved in 45% (5/11) of cases using sutures and in 72% (24/33) using a stapler, P = .14. The rate of LAA occlusion by individual surgeons increased from 43% (9/21) to 87% (20/23) after performing 4 cases (P = .0001). After a mean follow-up of 13 +/- 7 months, 2.6% of patients had thromboembolic events. CONCLUSIONS: LAA occlusion at the time of CABG is safe. The rate of complete occlusion improves, to acceptable levels, with increased experience and the use of a stapling device. A large trial is needed to determine if LAA occlusion prevents stroke.

Determination of troponin I release after CABG surgery.

BACKGROUND: Troponin I is used to diagnose myocardial infarction (MI). Its use and pattern of elevation is not well defined in coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. This study assessed the timing of troponin I elevation in patients undergoing urgent CABG. METHOD: Patients undergoing urgent isolated-CABG with cardiopulmonary bypass were studied prospectively. Blood samples were taken to measure CK, CK-MB, and troponin I: preoperatively, 7 hours postoperatively, 14 to 18 hours postoperatively, 30 to 48 hours postoperatively, and on postoperative day 4. Electrocardiograms and in-hospital course were recorded. Perioperative MI (PMI) was defined by either (i) ECG criteria of new Q-waves in the presence of CK-MB elevation >50 microg/L or (ii) CK-MB > 100 microg/L. RESULTS: Of the 50 patients studied, 6 met the criteria for PMI (12%); 2 by criteria (i) and 4 by criteria (ii). In patients not meeting the criteria for MI the troponin I level peaked at 7 hour post-op with a mean of 20.97 microg/L (95% CI, 17.11 to 24.83). At this time, patients who met the criteria for MI had a mean troponin I level of 46.85 microg/L (95% CI, 36.40 to 57.30). Of variables investigated for the 44 patients who did not meet MI criteria, only preoperative troponin I level impacted peak postoperative troponin I. CONCLUSIONS: CABG elevates troponin I far beyond current diagnostic benchmarks without the clinical occurrence of a MI and appears to peak during the second postoperative day. An elevated preoperative troponin I may predict an elevated peak postoperative troponin I in patients who do not have a PMI.

Increased blood product use among coronary artery bypass patients prescribed preoperative aspirin and clopidogrel.

BACKGROUND: The administration of antiplatelet drugs before coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) is associated with an increased risk of major hemorrhage and related surgical reexploration. Little is known about the relative effect of combined clopidogrel and aspirin on blood product use around the time of CABG. We evaluated the associated risk between the combined use of aspirin and clopidogrel and the transfusion of blood products perioperatively. METHODS: We retrospectively studied a cohort of 659 individuals who underwent a first CABG, without concomitant valvular or aortic surgery, at a single large Canadian cardiac surgical centre between January 2000 and April 2002. The four study exposure groups were those prescribed aspirin (n = 105), clopidogrel (n = 11), the combination of both (n = 46), or neither drug (n = 497), within 7 days prior to CABG. The primary study outcome was the excessive transfusion of blood products during CABG and up to the second post-operative day, defined as > or = 2 units of packed red blood cells (PRBC), > or = 2 units of fresh frozen plasma, > or = 5 units of cryoprecipitate or > or = 5 units of platelets. Secondary outcomes included the mean number of transfused units of each type of blood product. RESULTS: A greater mean number of units of PRBC were transfused among those who received clopidogrel alone (2.9) or in combination with aspirin (2.4), compared to those on aspirin alone (1.9) or neither antiplatelet drug (1.4) (P = 0.001). A similar trend was seen for the respective mean number of transfused units of platelets (3.6, 3.7, 1.3 and 1.0; P < 0.001) and fresh frozen plasma (2.5, 3.1, 2.3, 1.6; P = 0.01). Compared to non-users, the associated risk of excessive blood product transfusion was highest among recipients of aspirin and clopidogrel together (adjusted OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.3). No significant association was seen among lone users of aspirin (adjusted OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.6-1.6) or clopidogrel (adjusted OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.2-2.5), compared to non-users. CONCLUSIONS: While combined use of aspirin and clopidogrel shortly before CABG surgery may increase the associated risk of excess transfusion of blood products perioperatively, several study limitations prevent any confident conclusions from being drawn. Beyond challenging these findings, future research might focus on the value of both intraoperative monitoring of platelet function, and the effectiveness of antifibrinolytic agents, at reducing the risk of postoperative bleeding.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of prophylactic metoprolol for reduction of hospital length of stay after heart surgery: the beta-Blocker Length Of Stay (BLOS) study.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common complication of heart surgery. Previous studies have shown that there is an association between postoperative AF and prolongation of hospital length of stay. No previous trials have been primarily directed at demonstrating that the use of drugs that prevent AF would shorten length of stay and reduce the costs of postoperative care. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of metoprolol was performed in patients immediately after nonemergent heart surgery. Metoprolol was given orally at a dose of 100 mg per day after the patient's arrival in the intensive care unit until hospital discharge or 14 days, whichever was sooner. This dose was increased to 150 mg per day after the enrollment of 411 patients. The primary outcome measure of the study was hospital length of stay from admission to intensive care unit until hospital discharge. There were 1000 patients enrolled, evenly distributed to the metoprolol and placebo groups. RESULTS: There was a 20% reduction in the risk of AF developing with metoprolol, from 39% of patients to 31% of patients (P =.01). There was no effect of treatment on hospital length of stay, which was 152 +/- 61 hours for placebo and 155 +/- 90 hours for metoprolol (P = 0.79). The cost of postoperative care in the 2 treatment groups was similar. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic metoprolol reduces the risk of AF after heart surgery. It does not reduce hospital length of stay. Although it is cost effective for the reduction of AF, it did not reduce the overall cost of care.

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study (LAAOS): a randomized clinical trial of left atrial appendage occlusion during routine coronary artery bypass graft surgery for long-term stroke prevention.

BACKGROUND: Many patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery have risk factors for both atrial fibrillation (AF) and stroke. The left atrial appendage (LAA) is a main source of thrombus coming from the left atrium. LAA occlusion should be tested as a means to reduce future cerebral ischemic events in these patients. METHODS: The Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study (LAAOS) is a randomized clinical trial designed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of LAA occlusion for prevention of ischemic stroke in patients undergoing CABG. The target population consists of patients at risk of AF and stroke who are having routine CABG surgery. The main study will be a prospective, controlled, unblinded trial. Patients at risk of future development of AF, or having AF, will be randomly assigned to undergo or not undergo LAA occlusion. A total of 2500 patients will be randomly assigned and followed for 5 years for the primary outcome of stroke. This study of 2500 patients will have 90% power to detect a relative reduction of 20% in stroke, from a 5-year incidence of 20% in the control group to 16% in the intervention group. Currently, a pilot trial is underway that will enroll 100 patients to assess feasibility, safety, and rates of successful LAA occlusion as assessed by postoperative transesophageal echocardiography. The most suitable surgical technique will also be assessed during the pilot trial. In the pilot study, the main outcomes are safety and rate of successful obliteration of the LAA after surgical occlusion. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical trial designed to evaluate LAA occlusion at the time of routine CABG surgery is currently in the pilot phase.